Slavery in the Bible: Atheist-Christian Dialogue (Trent Horn, Gavin Ortlund, Josh Bowen, Kipp Davis)

[@Zack-cs7ry]

2.5 hrs. No ad Homs, no strawmans, no intentional interruptions, no disrespect. 👌🏻

[@bobthebuildest6828]

so real, it truly speaks to their character and their scholarship too many youtube “scholars” are not well read and their insecurity in theory knowledge comes out in ad hominem attacks

[@tonussi]

so good

[@sjappiyah4071]

Was actually so refreshing…

[@jonasopmeer]

Trent and Gavin together is unbelievably cool.

[@ericgraham4360]

Yes.

[@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419]

Imagine Trent, Gavin, Jimmy Akin, James White together😳

[@brunoarruda9916]

James white would just ruin it all (I'm protestant)

[@johnbrion4565]

@@brunoarruda9916lol 😂

[@billymunce4602]

I really dislike James White, (I’m also a Protestant)

[@ora_et_labora1095]

THIS is Christianity. Brothers standing together, over denominations, against the attacks on the church. Inspirational!

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.

[@bourbonrebel5515]

@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fhOf course it is. It was founded by Jesus. Good try though!

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

@@bourbonrebel5515 No, it wasn't.

[@bourbonrebel5515]

@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh Yes, it was.

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

@bourbonrebel5515 If Roman Catholicism was founded by Christians, it would adhere to the Bible and it doesn't.

[@ElvisI97]

Gavin as you can tell from the comments we are all so happy to see you and Trent defending Christianity from the same side. This is “Truth Unites” embodied.

[@OldMotherLogo]

They are not defending Christianity. The discussion is not about Christianity. It is about slavery. They are defending slavery in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament.

[@ElvisI97]

@@OldMotherLogo would you agree that defending the bible is connected to defending Christianity? If Christianity is completely irrelevant to this discussion why was “atheist-Christian dialogue” mentioned in the title?

[@OldMotherLogo]

I would not agree that defending the Bible = defending Christianity. The question under discussion is the practice of slavery, as described in the Bible. The position of Josh and Kit is that the Bible endorses slavery, which objectively it is obvious that it does. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament is there a single word of condemnation of the practice of slavery. If defending the practice of slavery = defending Christianity, what does that say about Christianity? Most Christians I know agree that owning other human beings is wrong and are glad that we have abandoned that practice. Why Trent and Gavin cannot bring themselves to admit that owning other human beings is wrong and spent two hours dancing around that rationalizing slavery completely baffles me. Today’s Christians, whether they acknowledge it or not, have abandoned many practices that were common in the Bible. Most Christians would say that polygamy is morally wrong yet this was normal in Biblical times. Many Christians condemn moral relativism but aren’t these stances - that these practices of slavery and polygamy were moral in Biblical times but are not moral now - moral relativism? Most Christians I know agree that genocide is wrong yet God commands it in the Hebrew Bible. It is wrong now but was not wrong then? We are told that God’s law is unchanging yet Christians have changed their position on it many times over the last 2,000 years. Whether they realize it or not, every generation renegotiates their understanding of the Bible. I think that the title would have been more accurate to call it a dialogue between apologists and scholars because, in fact, that is what it was. Josh and Kit were speaking as Biblical scholars, not as atheists. Trent and Gavin are, by their own descriptions, Christian apologists. The conversation had nothing to do with the existence of God or the validity of Christianity.

[@ElvisI97]

@@OldMotherLogo I didn't ask if defending the Bible is equal to defending Christianity. I asked you if you agree that defending the Bible is *connected* to defending Christianity. They are obviously connected as the title itself presents the interlocutors from their perspectives. It seems that you might be ideologically blinded to be aware of the biases from you own side. Its not apologists vs scholars. Everyone on the panel as either a PhD and/ or published scholarly work. The difference is their philosophical starting points. One side are atheists and the other are Christians. They both have biases hence why a rigorous dialogue is required to test and challenge each others ideas. There are plenty of reasona why someone could speculate why an atheist would want to promote that the Bible endorses slavery. Nobody gets the privilege ofassuming they have no biases. Calling one side scholarly and not the other is naive and shows a lack of understanding regarding the diversity of interpretation of the same facts.

[@crimsonking7179]

Incorrect on all accounts ​@@OldMotherLogo

[@hll97fr16]

This is the kind of unity by truth that we need. Gavin Ortlund is one of the best protestant apologetic, and Trent one of the best catholic. Catholic, orthodox, protestant and all Christian should be inited in the defense of the Bible.

[@jindjai]

Amen

[@IAMFISH92]

Amen

[@thedude0000]

even when that position is in defense of slavery?!?

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@thedude0000 Smh!

[@jonasopmeer]

@@thedude0000 haha dude, listen to the discussion!

[@AdamRice9740]

If you go in order from Josh, Trent, Gavin, and to Kipp, their outfits get gradually more casual. I’m so grateful to add something substantial to this conversation.

[@seeqr9]

Keeling us focused on what’s important brother tyfys😂 This is how my brain works too tho lol

[@gemnox]

When you defeat the boss and unlock him as a playable character

[@myjunedayya]

lol

[@jtbasener1810]

Gavin Ortlund: *Enters McTrent's Castle* *Cue Gregorian Boss Battle Music*

[@illadvized7623]

This is gold lol❤

[@powerfulaura5166]

rofl

[@SuperMeatBoa]

🤣🤣🤣

[@arkadiusw.897]

GAVIN + TRENT = THE ULTIMATE WWE TAG TEAM

[@computationaltheist7267]

Agreed.

[@michaelt5030]

“IT LOOKS LIKE GAVIN MIGHT BE DOWN! But wait…what’s this? IT’S TRENT WITH THE STEEL CHAIR!!!”

[@barryoldern1605]

JOHN CENA!

[@barryoldern1605]

@@michaelt5030 hah or with THE STEEL MAN and the refute

[@Young_Christian7]

Bro now I wanna make them in 2K 😂

[@Catmonks7]

Love the catholic and Protestant teamwork defending the faith against skeptics/athiests👍 working together as brothers in Christ is needed more often great job guys 🙏✝️🇻🇦

[@thetruest7497]

Yes, catholics and protestants teaming up to defend slavery.

[@OldMotherLogo]

Brothers in Christ defending slavery in the Bible. Got it.

[@Catmonks7]

@@OldMotherLogo Peace be with you 🙏✝️🇻🇦😇 First, no matter how repugnant these descriptions are to modern ears, it is entirely plausible to read them as regulatory rather than obligatory; and second, we don’t have to assume that the word (property) used by the ancient author of this verse in Leviticus carried with it the exact same significance it bears today. Every society/culture /civilization had slavery and it was northern Christian abolitionists who ended slavery in the United States. Jesus came into a sinful fallen world tainted by original sin and taught us to love one another and through his death passion-crucifixion and resurrection changed the world and showed us all humans are made in the image of god with human dignity. God bless you 🙏 more charitable dialogue is needed between those who have differnt world views.Gods love and mercy is for everyone jesus loves you 🙏🇻🇦✝️😇

[@OldMotherLogo]

I guess Christians missed the message about dignity and love because they continued and promoted the practice of slavery for 1700+ years before they finally started giving it up. The end of slavery did not come about because of Christianity, it came about because of the Enlightenment.

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

​@@Catmonks7slavery is slavery. I love Buddha more

[@Mpsieber]

Roman Catholic here. It's so great to see Trent and Gavin teaming up. Great discussion.

[@WesleyKwan_]

I was surprised to find that Gavin and Trent had a very strong case for the Biblical laws being a progressive improvement on ANE laws, which I did not expect going into this video, especially considering my respect for Josh's work. Regarding Exodus 21:26-27, I dont think Josh made a compelling case why the slave should be rendered as an indentured slave, especially considering verse 21 is talking about "chattel" slaves. As such, this should been seen as a massive improvement for "chattel" slaves found nowhere else in ANE codes, which many commentators have noted, as Gavin pointed out. I found it interesting how Josh shifted from saying "basically every expert" seeing it as indentured slavery to "majority of experts" after Gavin pointed that out. It seems there is a lot of reading into the text required for Josh's view. Kipp's view that Imago Dei in Genesis 1 didnt apply to human-human relations I think is soundly refuted by how the writers themselves interpreted it in Genesis 9:6, and Trent did a great job pointing that out. Just because, as Kipp says, it was about our dominion over nature, it doesnt mean it doesnt also imply we have intrinsic human value -- in fact, it would support that view. Additionally, Gavin did an excellent job showcasing how compassion for foreigners and the downtrodden was a recurring motif and special to the Biblical laws, and Josh even conceded that while ANE laws also protected the downtrodden, they didnt have this level of concern for foreigners. It seems then that the Bible was a significant improvement in treating foreigners, particularly foreign runaway slaves. The only two superior areas of ANE laws Josh and Kipp brought up were the 3 years before releasing the slave (as opposed to 6 years in the Bible) and the right of a slave to challenge their status. But as was pointed out, the Biblical 6 years was in combination with the provision of many resources and food after release, whereas the ANE laws lacked that. In the context of the time, the Biblical law provides a much better scenario to help a released slave survive in the harsh environment. Also as Trent pointed out, the right of a slave to challenge their status was necessarily implict in some of the Biblical laws. So it seems that the Bible is actually an improvement in these areas -- or at the very least, these benefits of ANE laws are comparatively weak. Therefore, when comparing the Biblical innovations on prohibiting chattel slave abuse, the protection of foreign runaway slaves, and the revolutionary idea of the Imago Dei versus the two areas Josh and Kipp claimed ANE laws were superior, it seems that ancient Israel was, on a whole, MUCH better legally for a slave to live in. Overall, this was a very excellent and informative dialogue, and I especially appreciated the level of professionalism displayed by all four. Keep up the great content!

[@pleasedontkillme2854]

Great summary!

[@FuddlyDud]

Thank you for the great summary! :)

[@omnikevlar2338]

Another thing they didn’t get into an ethics debate. More so a labeling debate if you will. Cause at the end of the debate my contention about this. Is slavery puts people very easily in positions where abuse occurs and slave owners can get away with it. And if you need me to breakdown why that’s a problem I’ll ask if you want to be my slave?

[@johnbrion4565]

@@omnikevlar2338are you saying that if the OT is the word of God it would have prohibited slavery from the beginning?

[@TravisD.Barrett]

thank you for the summary, genuinely helpful!

[@blaketmoran]

I’ve been looking forward to checking this out! LOVE seeing Trent and Gavin with the collab on this

[@elthgar]

Grateful for the tone in this dialog. Thank you Trent, Gavin, Josh, and Kipp -- we need more of these kinds of respectful conversations as a society.

[@ShawnCook-u4g]

I feel like those 2 guys weren't ready for Trent and Gavin to have such a strong defense.

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

Looool

[@crimsonking7179]

​@Aaaasss-t4q yes we know you can't read

[@dallasburns677]

Is that what you just witnessed?

[@ShawnCook-u4g]

@dallasburns677 I commented 7 months ago, lol

[@andrewsidorchuk9289]

This was a fantastic talk. Thank you all for being so respectful and not talking over each other.

[@CroElectroStile]

I'ts always good to have Trent on your side in a debate.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Except if he uses those quotes he used to downplay the New Testament in the early church. Lee McDonald has many mistakes.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Here is my summary takeaway from the debate: The two atheist scholars contend that biblical text is not novel or progressive in the nature of slave treatment and their views. They draw other ancient near eastern text showing rights from slaves asserting it not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Gavin and Trent argue that the Old Testament passages have unique laws on the treatment of slaves showing progressive but with the extra theological emphasis on Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 9:6 on the ontology and value of the imago dei. They also incorporate Jesus in Matthew 19:8 In that not all of the law was ideal by n Jesus' passage. They engage in discussions on the ANE and Biblical texts on the distinctions between indentured servitude and permanent slavery. Gavin and Trent argue that there are unique passages from the Bible that punish slave owners for killing or causing serious Injury to slaves showing that slaves had rights. The atheist scholars argued that it was indentured servitude in that passage and not any kind of slave. Gavin and Trent argued that's baseless Overall is was shockingly very cordial and engaging. I learned a lot from the debate actually

[@tpw7250]

Thanks for the summary

[@martifingers]

@@tpw7250 Yes a good reading of a good natured debate.

[@omnikevlar2338]

Also the apologists had to check several times with the atheist scholars about what other near eastern texts said on a specific subject.

[@PastorDylanFord]

@@omnikevlar2338 Right, the apologists humbly defaulted to the experts in the field of ANE slave laws as they are neither OT scholars nor ANE scholars. I'm not sure if you were intending your comment as an insult, but if you were, I don't think you accomplished what you were trying to do.

[@thedude0000]

_The two atheist scholars contend that biblical text is not novel or progressive in the nature of slave treatment and their views_ They actually *demonstrated* that the Bible isn't as progressive as the apologist believe.

[@Georges_Jacques_Danton]

Best part of the video hands down : 17:12. A Protestant calling a Catholic his brother.

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

It isn't true. Roman Catholicism is a false religion.

[@crisgon9552]

​@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fhis Gavin s false teacher for calling Trent his brother in Christ? Should we excommunicate/avoid Gavin?

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

@@crisgon9552 I have no idea why he called him brother. Is he his brother if he isn't a Christian? I don't call any Catholics my brother or sister.

[@crisgon9552]

@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh that doesn't answer my question. It's Gavin a false teacher for calling Trent brother?

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

@crisgon9552 Maybe. Can you prove Trent is a Christian? If he teaches false doctrine, he isn't a Christian most likely. The Bible isn't hard to understand. There are basic tenants and doctrinal positions which cannot be compromised. I wouldn't call any Catholic my brother.

[@brudit]

Thank you all 4 for this enjoyably civil conversation, I found it informed and interesting and sheding light for both viewing angles, I'm in hopes of hearing more like this.

[@jansongunn4214]

When Dr Josh says he thinks something is immoral but has no basis for it because he’s not an expert on ethics, but still posits it as part of his argument based on how he feels or an intuition I think it’s a bit slippery in a discussion like this especially when his side brought up the question

[@ottovonapps]

Agree and plus there is no such thing as moral/ethical in an atheist view...that's a fact.

[@myjunedayya]

Agreed. That's in line with my observation that atheists' morality is based on feeling and intuition. And seeing Josh being slippery on this is just embarrassing.

[@jonathandelarosa8333]

In fairness you cant have a debate or exposition on ethics every time you want to appeal to something being "wrong", especially if its not something the person deeply studied. Also how on earth is an atheist going to give a satisfying basis for ethics period. As a Christian you just gotta meet them where they are at.

[@ottovonapps]

@@jonathandelarosa8333 good point

[@jansongunn4214]

@@jonathandelarosa8333 I agree with you. The slippery part for me is that they did bring it up in order to poison the well

[@Beerfornothing]

Seeing you and Trent together warms my heart, truly.

[@Lrock79]

Fantastic conversation, Trent and Gavin on the same team is a beautiful thing to witness. Catholics and Protestants have their differences, but we both love the Lord and both revere His Word.

[@JohnReneEliaGallaza-fj9lg]

I want more Trent and Gavin action

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

Trent too busy looking for answers on his phone.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

This was great and it was awesome seeing Gavin and Trent on the same side

[@trentoo9404]

Way to go Gavin and Trent! “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Running down on the beard, The beard of Aaron.”

[@jeanellecortez1422]

When Gavin calls Trent his brother 🥹❤️ May we all be united as brothers and sisters in Christ 🕊️

[@MarvelGamer2023]

Under the Church which Christ Himself established on Peter the Rock of the Apostles

[@stephengray1344]

Kipp's definition of slavery would extend to virtually all modern employer-employee relationships. Since in those arrangements the employer owns the employee's labour.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

1000000000% That was my exact thought as I saw that definition!!

[@micahprice2807]

I thought the same thing. I actually paused and looked around my place of employment and thought… dang these guys own me… lol

[@paulallenscards]

The employer does not typically own the employee’s labor, but purchases their labor in increments. The only scenario where this analogy sort of makes sense is in regard to the long-term contracts that we see in sports or cinema. But in each of these cases, the athlete or actor always has the option of reneging on the agreement, in which case all future payments for their services would cease.

[@stephengray1344]

@@paulallenscards So you're saying that employers purchase your labour without owning it? How does that purchase not transfer ownership? The only cases I can think of where the labour is not owned by the employer for the duration of the contract are creative industries where the employee retains the copyright (this would include thinks like programmers who contribute to open source projects whilst on the job). But these are rare excepttions to the rule. And when it comes to the employee reneging on their contract, that would be a clear breach of contract law and the employer could successfully sue them for doing so.

[@paulallenscards]

@@stephengray1344 because they purchase it *from you* as opposed to someone else selling your labor to them.

[@franciscofont2194]

Trent's approach and Gavin's approach really complement each other 👌

[@luxunumbracrj4311]

What a wonderful discussion! I'm so pleased to see all parties come together and converse in such a mature manner. Please please please host Josh and Kipp again!

[@rickydettmer2003]

Gavin and Trent together is quite formidable indeed👌

[@mariomene2051]

I really love this--Gavin and Trent teaming up, but also the steelmanning section. Every debate should have a steelmanning section!

[@Xavier-ww9zy]

The church united is truly amazing

[@MomentumCanada365]

Excellent conversation guys! Gavin, I wanted to point out--to further your point on Ex 21:26-27 being case law examples--verse 22, which talks about abusing a pregnant woman, there's an implication that these judges were given authority to use their own discretion. That would support your comment towards vs. 26 and 27 being used as hypotheticals to judge an endless variety of possible circumstances, where a judges's discretion would be needed.

[@JLCProductions1976]

A point that I made in my own analysis of a different video (yes, I’m plugging my own channel) is that there seems to be NO recognition on Kipp and Josh’s part that they are living at the end of 2,000 years of developed, systematic Christian moral philosophy.

[@thetruest7497]

That's because it's not true.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@thetruest7497 Yes, it is in western countries especially in the United States.

[@thetruest7497]

@@davidjanbaz7728 nope. Not true at all.

[@JLCProductions1976]

@@thetruest7497 so…basically you are admitting to being ignorant of 2,000 years of history of philosophy.

[@thetruest7497]

@Triggerman1976 there is no such thing as systematic Christian moral philosophy. The whole phrase is BS. There's the bible and it's edicts which are quite antithetical to our societies in the west as a whole, and there is western philosophy which is far superior to what we find in Christianity. Just because Christians practiced Western philosophy doesn't make Western philosophy Christian. It's a kindergarten level mistake you made.

[@HipHip_Jorge]

This debate was really technical! Love seeing Trent and Gavin team up!

[@Sonic2Chronicles]

This was too short. I could have listened to another 3 hours easily. Please do another of these conversations!!

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Josh surprises me. He opens up with saying that he probably doesn't have a consistent framework with which to explain why gRape is wrong (!!), but enters into a debate where he is comfortable saying OT laws are worse then ANE laws... what???

[@BoScotty]

I thought the same thing, lol. I predicted that was going to happen, and it happened earlier than I thought. I'm not a fan of Jay Dyer, but what I do appreciate about him is that he doesn't grant Atheists their positions because they don't have any objective ground to stand on. How can they tell me slavery is wrong if they don't have an objective justification for why it's wrong?

[@levifox2818]

But he never said the Old Testament laws were worse than other ancient near eastern codes

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@levifox2818 You missed the point. If someone concedes that, in their own words, admit they probably have an inconsistent moral framework, then they are in no position to critique any kind of morality, historical or present day. It gets even more ludicrous when you consider that Hammurabi claimed that his law was given by Shamash, their deity of justice. In effect two athiests are pitting the laws of two dieties against each other, while bringing little contribution to the moral landscape from their own worldview, except their inconsistent framework.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@alisterrebelo9013 I think this point is actually worth spending most of the time in for these dialogues. For, even if I’m an expert in statistical analysis of child care, including abortions, yet I don’t take a moral stance on the issue, then I’m actually mostly incapable of moving the needle any which way. I’d be locked in to offering concessions but having no affirmative worldview of my own. At best, my work would be a useful tool in the hands of those willing to take such affirmative positions, but nothing more. :/ I’m grateful though Trent and Gavin let them talk still. Both conceding the historical case for their own predispositions being Christian in origin was the most impressive thing to me! :)

[@alisterrebelo9013]

​@@FuddlyDud I think I understand your point of view. You have one important flaw in your example, a person working in childcare who ignores that abortion isn't childcare has let their employer make that moral decision for them. In effect, they've made a decision on it, by deferring that decision to their employer, thereby agreeing with their employers decision. However Josh isn't as principled/consistent as you are. His inconsistency is apparent throughout. He'll say he probably doesn't have a consistent moral framework and also be confident that the Hammurabi 3 year law is better than the Biblical 6 year law. Here's the analogy, someone tells you they are probably bad at giving directions and shortly after says, "You do a left, right, left, left to get your destination." Why would you trust the person? Their self admission of probable inconsistency undermines their credibility on the claim that followed.

[@ethanbergen3217]

Great conversation that should be a model for more productive conversations to come for many different channels

[@davidfrisken1617]

Great comment that is very lacking in this videos comments on this channel.

[@ashleyargall8791]

More videos of Catholic/Protestant apologists vs. Atheists/Skeptics please! Such a helpful dialogue. Great video!!

[@jeffreyanderson6021]

I think some gratitude and commendation is in order for Kipp and Josh as well. I don't know if I've seen a more civil discussion between atheists and Christians. Especially when the discussion becomes larger than one on one it is easier for tempers to become overheated, lots of explanations can be proposed for this phenomenon. And props to Derek Lambert for hosting and the great job he did with that. This is something I'd tune into again. The differences between world views shouldn't be overlooked or ignored, but I think if you start and end with an explication of the differences and why the groups don't see eye to eye the middle part of the conversation at least can be amiable.

[@hettinga359]

Love how it looks like Trent has a halo

[@jtbasener1810]

Accordingto Trent, Dr. Ortlund commited the heresy of protestantism, but little do we realize that Trent professes the age-old heresy of Trentism.

[@davidfrisken1617]

I am pretty sure he is aware of the picture behind him and the camera angle.

[@hankhooper1637]

Why are you putting that picture there, Trent? No reason. The comments section: Trent must be right...he has the 'glow of truth'

[@alisterrebelo9013]

I'm Catholic. While I appreciate the cordiality from the athiests, the lack of substance from Josh on Exodus 21 to first claim that there is near universal opinion on the verse 26-27 being about debt slaves, is not surprising. I heartily applaud the chastisement handed down by Gavin in that regard. A most excellent riposte, by quoting subject matter experts contradicting Josh. Also I appreciate Gavin pointing out the eisegesis by Josh in those verses to read into the text 'debt slaves' where it does not exist.

[@koppite9600]

Did you catch Kipp at the end trying to argue that God wanted the Israelites out of Egypt so he can enslave them himself? Such an idiot

[@drjtrekker]

LOL

[@OldMotherLogo]

Josh is representing the view of scholars who study both the Hebrew Bible and other laws of the ancient near East. Josh refers to words used in the text that suggest the passage is referring to debt slaves, not our English translations. Gavin is not a Biblical scholar, he is an apologist, and is basing his opinion on English translations. The difference between a scholar and an apologist is that a scholar starts with the evidence and draws their conclusions from that. An apologist starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it, ignoring evidence that contradicts it. While Gavin may appeal to those who already agree with him, his argument is not supported by the evidence.

[@koppite9600]

@@OldMotherLogo Arguing from authority.

[@drjtrekker]

@@koppite9600 lol

[@airanddust]

Thank you SO much for this much needed conversation. I would be incredibly helpful if you and trent did a follow up „review“ of the discussion or even a response to their review that they already posted.

[@jtbasener1810]

Amazing dialogue! It was so refreshing to see such intellects respectfully conversing on a topic so contentious where it is far too easy to become a debate between the "Blind heathens" and the "Slavery advocates". And the Ortlund-Horn combination was legendary. As a protestant, I deeply appreciate Trent's contribution, particularly but not only in the form of his quotes from the papacy. This is mostly an aside for Dr. Ortlund or anyone else who is curious, but I am under the impression that the book of Job - from which comes the "Have I harmed my slave?" line - is believed to have taken place during the time of Abraham before the giving of the law, because of the book's lack of awareness of later OT laws and costumes. I may have even heard that, although it was probably authored at the same time as Exodus, it likely dates back before even written Hebrew because of its being written in a poetic form (making it able to be pass down word-by-mouth). I have not done a terrible amount of research into this, so I invite people's responses. I mention it here because I suspect, if the story does predate Moses, it might have some interesting implications on the debate of the Imago Dei question. As always, thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for your taking the time here to address such a topic and to Trent Horn for helping comple the "Dream Team". My warmest thanks to Dr.s Davis and Bowen for being so kind as to engage the debate with their insights and thoughts - and to bless the discussion with the undeniably classy insert of a bowtie. With deep admiration and appreciation, Joshua T.

[@davemoore7808]

This was thoroughly enjoyable. Very nice conversation. Had it on during work and I had to pause because my attention would gravitate towards this too much because of how interesting it is.

[@교원JohabAlexis]

That was a very productive discussion. Thank you Gavin and Trent for defending the Bible on this topic. I also appreciate Dr. Josh and Dr Kipp for having this discussion. You are both great scholars and yet you are both very humble and honest about your position. I am a christian but after this discussion I will definitely check out your channels.

[@Doug-jf5hx]

Gavin and Trent excellent job pushing back on the misrepresentation of Scripture! Genesis 1 was difficult for Kipp to rebut. He clams to be a scholar in more areas than he has done his work. Thank you again.

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

Not at all

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

They cant even read Hebrew.

[@azrael516]

​@@Aaaasss-t4qAs if that were a problem

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

@@azrael516 yes it is.

[@Aaaasss-t4q]

Trent on his phone looking for answers🤣🤣😭

[@faadiallo2997]

Gavin and Trent debate together well. Usually double debates don't work.

[@nelidascott6917]

Great team! Gavin and Trent complement each other so well! Both articulate and clear communicators. Very well done 👏🏽 ❤

[@Dave_OGG]

Two of my favorite KZbinrs joining together

[@blakerice7928]

The best public conversation on this topic so far!

[@NowLetsBeHonest]

Throughout the debate, the question of "Does the Law's regulations improve on the regulations of other cultures (i.e. Hammburabi)?" Forgive me if I missed this, but why is that important? I understand the appeal, as a Christian, to want to say that the Law is the end-all-be-all best code of ethics/regulations, but if we've already established, given the Matthew text, that the Law wasn't an ideal, but rather an accommodation for Israel's hardness of heart, doesn't that nullify the need for it to be an "improvement" on surrounding Law codes? Shouldn't our main goal be to examine all the regulations in their entirety and determine the intention of the Lawgiver? It seems like Gavin kept trying to make this point throughout the debate (citing other texts throughout Scripture and encouraging them to look at the Law in its entirety rather than at individual texts), but it kept getting pushed to the side to get back to the "improvement" discussion. It just seems to me that, hypothetically, God could have several reasons for giving inferior regulations to Israel (that is, "inferior" to the regulations of other cultures), given cultural circumstances specific to Israel at that time period that we might not even be aware of. By insisting that each law needs to be an "improvement" on that of a surrounding culture, we are treating the Law as an ideal, which we already established, at the beginning of the debate, it is not.

[@OldMotherLogo]

In the Hebrew Bible, when God wanted to make a point or enforce something they had NO problem with responding emphatically, violently, miraculously. This argument that somehow God could not instruct his people not to own other people and not to have sex slaves is unconvincing. Either God is maximally great or is not and those who argue that God had to use the *very* gradual approach with slavery are essentially arguing that God was not capable of putting an end to slavery or even expressing displeasure with it. It took the rational Enlightenment movement to begin to put an end to slavery thousands of years later, not the Bible.

[@azrael516]

​@@OldMotherLogoEnlightenment Rationalism?? It was she who continued slavery and racism. According to the book Dominion, it was Christians who were abolishing slavery. I have already shown you verses that God commands that the Hebrews do no harm or perversity to foreign and Hebrew slaves, but you are ignoring them.

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@azrael516 Have a nice day.

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@azrael516 Here is one brief video on slavery in the Hebrew Bible by a Bible scholar who is an active member of his church: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5nciIStiNN_mrMsi=hzEGe89zJ70m949c

[@azrael516]

@@OldMotherLogo Good morning. You stated all the perversities of slavery, in short exploitation, but you are stating this based on slavery from the modern view. You just affirm and nothing else, you are not using any proof to debunk the biblical verses that talk about the rights of slaves and foreigners

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Liking the video for Christian unity.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Goku and Vegeta finally fighting together.

[@Ehhhhhsureeee]

lol nice.

[@powerfulaura5166]

rofl

[@MrRiosRivers]

Great job Gavin and Trent!

[@alexiogomes955]

The ending of this conversation was the best. The last 20 minutes was amazing. Also, I love Jesus, hahaha.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Man…This was like having Leo Messi & Ronaldo playing on the same team… Trent & Gavin , respectful rivalry, united to defend Christianity. Fantastic discussion, even whilst starting on the back foot as y’all were blindsided by a PowerPoint that wasn’t agreed to prior, y’all still made your positions clear even without the graphic. You guys also proved without a doubt how the laws of Exodus 21 uplift the humanity of debt slave far more than the code of homarabi. As much as Dr. Josh tried , he just simply didn’t have enough textual data from other near eastern text to match the many humanitarian provisions the Bible had for slaves. Kudos to Dr. Kipp & Dr. Josh nonetheless, very well spirited and good faith discussion

[@philipgrassy5498]

This was awesome.

[@susand3668]

Yes, it would be great to "do this again sometime"! I was very impressed with everyone, each contributing in his own unique way. Thank you all!

[@blakejohnson1264]

Wow… Gavin and Trent did a tremendous job

[@Thatguyisfly1]

Great discussion

[@williambillycraig1057]

Did it seem that Dr. Josh was getting more upset than the rest of the panel?

[@annb9029]

Yes

[@davidfrisken1617]

No. He has been through these conversations many times.

[@kvnboudreaux]

this is the way forward these kinds of discussion

[@jfitz6517]

Looking at the comment section of this dialogue on the atheists’ channel, the contempt & scorn thrown at Gavin & Trent is amazing to me. Not a single comment I saw wrestled with the question, “Where do our abolitionist sentiments come from?” Everyone assumed, a priori, God as presented in the Bible, is wholly evil. It reminds me of Helen Joy Lewis’ faith journey when she said, “What can the best atheist do but turn Pharisee? Since he is the only standard of value he recognizes, why shouldn’t he be proud?”

[@smitty1647]

our abolitionist sentiments come from recognizing our common humanity, and that as human beings we have the right to be free individuals rather than human property. when the god of the bible treats humans as cattle to be owned, it is not an a priori assumption that god is evil. it is a direct result of god supporting and committing evil deeds. not just slavery, but mass murder on multiple occasions, bigotry against women, foreigners, and homosexuals, the death penalty for multiple crimes including working on the sabbath and not being a virgin on a woman's wedding night, etc. the next time an atheist is telling you why they think what they do, you should listen. don't just ignore them and go around saying they have no basis for their positions

[@beckyp7585]

Gavin and Trent on the same team! Love it so much!

[@SuperMeatBoa]

Funny how Dr Kipp doesn’t bark as much when he’s not on twitter or in KZbin live chats 🤣

[@NNaadah]

I appreciate very much the ethical, logical and adult conversation all have engaged in here!

[@lilkurva180]

Awesome discussion

[@davidclark5618]

Trent’s philosophical wit totally trolled everybody 😂

[@PastorDylanFord]

Ultimately the question boils down to is the Hebraic law DIFFERENT than ANE laws regarding slavery? If so, is it for better or worse? The athiests gave one example in which they belive the Code of Hamarabi is better than the OT (contesting one's condition of enslavement). However, my question is does that contestment apply to foreign/permanent slaves, or only indebted slaves? Are all slaves afforded that opportunity? If its the latter, it wouldn't seem better enough to constitute a preference for ANE slavery vs Hebrew. As was discussed, does that one opportunity constitute a significant difference in tbe treatment of the slave? If not, it's a moot point and thus the human dignity afforded to all people by Gen. 1 carries much more weight than the athiests afforded it.

[@HearGodsWord]

Gavin and Trent were a dynamic duo *pow*

[@jc1daddy2]

What a 'fair way to start' Myth Vision "We have here 2 Christian apologists on one side and on the othe two critical scholars....they might be atheists but... who knows?" Poisining the well a bit.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

If you cut out the Mythvision intro, the value of the conversation goes up 10000%.

[@OldMotherLogo]

How is it poisoning the well? Trent and Gavin are Christian apologists, they self-identify as such. Kipp and Josh are former Christians but I’m not certain they identify as atheists since they focus on history, not theology. I have listened to both of them for dozens of hours and I am not sure if they consider themselves atheists or not, only that they no longer identify as Christians.

[@johnbrion4565]

They replied, "Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her." But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation…”

[@jonathandelarosa8333]

Trent is dry at times and to the point with his reasoning/questioning, whereas Gavin is charismatic, rounds out arguments and makes concessions where need. You two complement each other well.

[@ewo00]

Gavin and Trent on the same side of an argument? There is hope for Christian unity after all!

[@mitromney]

These scholars are biased more than Christians are, and it REALLY shows. Gavin's arguments were all factual, but they are reading negative context INTO the text without grounding it in any further facts, just their biases. - But the slaves were shown unique mercy. - Well it wasn't REALLY merciful, that's just the backstory of Israel. - But the Old Testament shows uniquely that humans are made in the image of God and as such deserve certain rights and have dignity. - Well it wasn't REALLY about rights or dignity, it was all just about dominion. - But the Old Testament laws in regards to slavery made Israel into heaven for foreign mistreated slaves. - Well it was probably just incidental, those laws weren't intending that. - But all of those Old Testament passages were ground for abolition movement in the first place. - Well but that's just the interpretation of abolitionists, it's not what the Jewish authors intended. - But the New Testament interprets all of those Old Testament passages in the same way. - Well but we know much better what ancient Old Testament-writing Jews thought when they were writing than ancient New Testament Jews did. I expected scholars at least to bring facts rather than their emotions like new atheists usually do, but it's excuses, biases and agendas all over again. And it's not just their biases they bring to the table, almost every scholarly work they ground their feet in when they present their arguments is written by yet another hard-boiled new atheist scholar who hates Christian God with a passion. I can appreciate the debate being civil, but when it comes to arguments, atheists once again proved they simply can not understand or Steelman Christians in the slightest. They can only think in their own categories, staying inside new atheist bubble that demands everything that's in the bible to be wicked and ill-willed by default.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Josh's steelman initially was pretty good. He then proceeded to ignore the steelman. I don't watch Josh at all so this is my first impression of him. He alluded to being a former Christian who has deconstructed a great deal of his faith over this one topic. Slavery in the ANE has apparently defined a great deal of his identity. What he apparently doesn't realise is that he retains a great deal more of his Christian upbringing than he might want. His moral framework is self admittedly inconsistent. I wonder then, why anyone ought to pay attention to his claims of immorality in the Bible?

[@tomasrocha6139]

These passages were ground for the pro-slavery movement. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation". Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property". De Wet, C.L. (2016-10-17). "The punishment of slaves in early Christianity: the views of some selected church fathers". Acta Theologica. 23 (1): 263. doi:10.4314/actat.v23i1S.13. ISSN 1015-8758.

[@davidfrisken1617]

Gavin disagrees with you.

[@stevenbatke2475]

I disagree that they hate the Christian god. They love the bible so much, that they’ve dedicated their lives to research it. They just see God as a character in a book, not the divine ruler of the world.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@stevenbatke2475 Disbelieving means the absence of love for God. For if they loved God, they would pay attention to and do as Jesus commanded us. *It matters not if they say they love the Bible, their actions show they don't love God.* John 14:23-24 ESV - 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 *Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.*

[@G1stGBless]

at 1:49:02 when Dr Kipp is arguing that Gen 1 is not about inter-human relationships and only referring to mans relationship with God, the Dr seems to lose track of the context altogether bc right over in gen3 God himself deals with Cain for murdering Abel (an image bearer) and says that his innocent blood cries up from the ground. Then when Cain cired out that he would be killed the Lord put a protective mark on Cain so that the murder would stop (even for the one who had committed murder). The image of God being murdered WAS the problem. The context is clear. It wasn't an animal, it was a human. Made in God's image.

[@User28870]

That doesn’t contradict Kipp’s point. The reason Genesis outlaws killing innocent people is because only God has the right to do so. Cain overstepped his authority.

[@hi-sense-is8xw]

On the issue at 2:07:00, Gavin is right. The Hebrew text explicitly says "his male slave" and "his female slave"

[@adamcraig5232]

This was a great discussion. I thought Trent was going to open a can of worms when he brought up genocide and Kipp's eyes lit up! Overall, this was great and it can help Christians not overclaim the positions. Both Trent and Gavin did a great job pointing out that these laws are concessions and not the ideal which a lot of atheists will not give credit to, so it was interesting to see Josh and Kipp agree these arent ideals.

[@adamcraig5232]

As far as Herem goes, I would point to spots where it is meant as a literal wide scale destruction but Israel fails in it. Both God and the editor who collected the text know Israel is not going to fulfill the command to devote to destruction, so I think that's where the hyperbole comes in. When Saul is supposed to Herem all men, women, and children, he doesn't follow through and loses the ability to continue to be king because he did not follow God's command of Herem (1 Samuel 15)! Judges also points to the literal nature of utter destruction and Israel's failure to follow through. Judges 2:21-23 (NET 2nd ed.): 21 So I will no longer remove before them any of the nations that Joshua left unconquered when he died, 22 in order to test Israel. I want to see whether or not the people will carefully walk in the path marked out by the Lord, as their ancestors were careful to do.” 23 This is why the Lord permitted these nations to remain and did not conquer them immediately; he did not hand them over to Joshua. So then following through on participating with the divine judgment of the people was an act of faithfulness as God had already judged the people worthy of death due to their practices which were quite vile when you look up the things they did. It'll be interesting to see Gavin's full views when he debates this.

[@Dlayn_Matthew]

Best birthday present!

[@voymasa7980]

At 2:05:44ish mark, Dr Josh is assuming that the 1 Kings record was following in accordance with the Torah. Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are historical genre, and while we can try to glean principles, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive action, and it's an assumption that Torah was being followed in that record.

[@trumpbellend6717]

What could possibly be more _"prescriptive"_ than the LAWS of the alleged creator of the universe ? 🤔 and you reconcile this filth by claiming that man didn't actually do the things God told them too ? 🙄

[@voymasa7980]

@@trumpbellend6717 are you under the impression that people obey laws because they are laws? If that were true then there wouldn't be any lawbreakers

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@voymasa7980 Lol no dear I'm _"under the impression"_ that if those laws originated with a perfect all knowing all powerful moral and loving being they wouldn't endorse sl4v3ry genocide and infanticide dear. The problem is NOT with regards to the things man did or did not do but rather with what a supposed loving God told them they "SHOULD" do 🙄🤫

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@voymasa7980 Lol no dear I'm _"under the impression"_ that if those laws originated with a perfect loving God they wouldn't endorse things like sl4v3ry. Do you disagree *YES or NO* ?? 🤔

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@voymasa7980 Stop trying to evade and pass the buck. The problem is not about the things men did or did not do but rather the things an alledgedly loving and perfect god told them they *"SHOULD"* do.

[@merg-vh5sx]

"Dr Kipp" "Dr Josh" "Gavin" ❤

[@ericgraham4360]

And don’t forget “Trent Horn”

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Those who feel the need to flash their credentials, I often observe to be unworthy of the credential, more often than I'd hope to be the case.

[@merg-vh5sx]

@@alisterrebelo9013 Where I come from flashing credentials is considered enormously uncool. (Ngl I kind of love that the Christian PhD in the room is the least dorky.)

[@endygonewild2899]

What did Trent do bro.

[@merg-vh5sx]

@@endygonewild2899 three MAs, apparently

[@ctt59]

Trent did not yet have ph.d. and he's sharp / he is an inspiration to young Christians / me a Protestant Thank you to Dr. Gavin too for disciplined kept as a sharp scholar as well in the Protestant tradition I admire very much the work Philosophy behind Christianity and specially held by Catholicism. How if we employ this in Protestantism

[@zekdom]

Time-stamp 34:15 - Law of Hammurabi, overplaying the different kinds of slavery? 36:10 - Was all slavery debt-based and contemporary? 37:35 - The last line of his book 38:32 - Was slavery intended as a “timeless” ideal? 39:40, 40:09 - Is slavery immoral? 41:10, 42:09 - Horn brings up the 13th Amendment 42:38 - “moral hazard” 47:00, 47:56 - is factory farming wrong? Substandard working conditions? 48:30 - Canadian… Trent Horn has a good way of elevating the mood.

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

Waiting for the opponents.. great work guys

[@Cloudssword4U]

Dr. Josh's 3 minute slide was actually 6 minutes long

[@Racingbro1986]

The virtue is having the capability of slavery and the autonomy as a creature and creating a society that abolishes it. First there had to be the possibility of slavery for abstaining from it to be a virtue. Our God gives us over to our free will, but even still he makes good of what we make bad, and all for his Glory.

[@annb9029]

Good conversation

[@k7stingray]

I know the conversation was running long and everyone was getting tired but I wish Gavin would have continued to question Josh a little more regarding his assertion that the Hamarabi passage and the Biblical passage were virtually on par with one another. It was interesting when Gavin asked him to explain that more, especially with regards to his seemingly ignoring the distinctions they brought up between the two texts. The Hamarabi text was focused on a third party killing a slave and making amends to the owner, whereas the Biblical text was focused on the owner doing physical harm to his own slave and making amends to the slave. Josh never quite answered the question satisfactorily. He brought up the 2 Kings 4:1 passage and said he was assuming a similar issue was going on in Exodus 21, but as Gavin mentioned, there is no reason given in the text to assume that's the case.

[@davidfrisken1617]

To be fair, the jews of the time got their text and law from the peoples who conquered them ,

[@edwardman1742]

Gavin, my favorite Protestant and Trent my favorite Catholic! Dream team!

[@Racingbro1986]

The best from The Catholic and Protestant traditions here

[@JLCProductions1976]

The problem is always terminology and not understanding the assumed social context of the ancient world that runs through the text.

[@OldMotherLogo]

Are you making a case for moral relativism? As in slavery was okay then because of context but is not okay now because we know better?

[@JLCProductions1976]

@@OldMotherLogo No, I'm saying that the moral aspect of the issue is often misunderstood or misapplied due to the underlying social context and unjustified moral claims on the part of unbelievers. Something that i go into here, kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqrSpXWQiZpjnZIsi=xJTAJQorJYg-c2Tp

[@cesarchavez9897]

Gavin hit it on the head: all humans are made in the image of God. No other religion, system, or belief can come close.

[@keithnicholas]

not really, hindus have a very similar conception of god and beings.

[@HillbillyBlack]

That was good. Gavin you and Trent should collaborate on a protestant/Catholic theological commentary.

[@Francoisdp82]

I asked chat gpt to compare the code of Hammurabi with the old testament with regards to slavery: The Code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest known legal codes from ancient Mesopotamia, also includes laws regarding slavery, and it's interesting to compare these with the biblical laws on slavery. The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1754 BCE) includes several provisions about slavery. For example: - If a slave says to his master, "You are not my master," his master shall prove that he is indeed his master, and the slave shall be punished (Law 282). - If a slave of a free man marries the daughter of a free man and the marriage produces children, the master of the slave shall not be entitled to the children of the free man’s daughter for service (Law 175). In contrast, the Old Testament laws: - Allow Hebrew slaves to be freed after six years of service, providing a form of temporary servitude (Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 15:12-15). - Command fair treatment of slaves, especially fellow Hebrews, and provision upon release (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). Both legal systems accept slavery but have different approaches and protections. The Code of Hammurabi is often more focused on maintaining social order and property rights, with specific punishments for disobedience and infractions. In contrast, the biblical laws, particularly regarding Hebrew slaves, show a concern for the humane treatment and eventual release of slaves, integrating principles of mercy and justice. Overall, while both sets of laws reflect their respective cultural and historical contexts, the Old Testament includes more provisions aimed at limiting the harshness of slavery and ensuring some level of dignity and eventual freedom for slaves.

[@thedude0000]

The mental gymnastics christians must go through to defend slavery in the bible. Seriously...over 1800+ years of christians owning slaves, but if you eat one shellfish, you've wrong god.

[@azrael516]

​@@thedude0000In 1800 years Christianity was against slavery.

[@thedude0000]

@@azrael516 there were certain individuals who were, but to claim all of christianity was is flat out wrong. 1) Early church fathers in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries owned slaves 2) well into the middle ages the catholic church used slaves to man it's ships 3) Venice Slave trade was endorsed and condoned by the church 4) In 1453 - 1455, Pope Nicolas issued several papal bulls to Portugal. IT STARTED THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 5) Throughout America, pastors & preachers used the bible to condone & endorse the institution of slavery 6) Mid 1800's, Jesuits sold slaves to finance a college that would become Georgetown University. Seriously.....the stain of slavery is all over christian history.

[@azrael516]

@@thedude0000 Sorry, but who said that the church fathers owned slaves?? and since when was slavery a stain on the church when all people had slaves?? He exaggerated, he exaggerated badly when he said that slavery was in the stains of the church.

[@ChristianSigma]

Excellent

[@montagdp]

The thing I don't understand about the progressive revelation argument is that the Bible has no issue condemning many other common cultural practices of the day in no uncertain terms; things like worshipping other gods, non-traditional sexual behavior, showing favoritism in legal cases, child sacrifice, etc. Yet nowhere does it say slavery is wrong, not even in the New Testament. How many lives could have been saved from the slave trade if Jesus had just said it was an abominable practice? Instead, we get a hard-line view against divorce, which I don't even think is a good approach in the first place. It vilifies people for getting out of abusive relationships. If this is supposed to be God's divine word, shouldn't we expect it to do better than "arguably slightly morally superior to the surrounding cultures"?

[@DitaHaile-11]

Because there is scio economic involved in slavery and abolishing, it has a direct effect on their economy and their social status, which will lead them to valunrable their neighbours, which will lead them to be colonised and being held cqptives

[@montagdp]

@@DitaHaile-11 even if God himself is protecting them? Is God limited by "socio-economic" factors?

[@DitaHaile-11]

@montagdp either that or give them advanced technology, which is horrible for the Israelites and their humanity understanding

[@bingus4901]

@@DitaHaile-11 God says other times in the bible that he will supernaturally provide.

[@micahprice2807]

First off: This was a great conversation. Secondly: It would have been VERY nice to have someone like Dr. Falk of the YT channel “Ancient Egypt and the Bible”, a Christian Egyptologist, and someone who actually works in THE FIELD OF THE TOPIC(Ancient Near East), on to speak as one of the Christian participants.

[@koppite9600]

Kipp and Josh are woke. They wouldn't like him

[@mendez704]

@@koppite9600 Falk is a right wing lunatic. Anybody with some basic sense of decency would not like him

[@azrael516]

​@@mendez704Ad hominem not argument

[@azrael516]

​@@koppite9600kipp for telling lies about dr Falk?? Of course, right?

[@ntlearning]

Gavin's joke 👍: 19:29 Gavin's come back 🤟: 1:04:05 Gavin's great point 👉: 1:41:45 with Trent adding on: 1:42:11 Trent's sizzling counter question 🔥🔥⚡: 1:33:09

[@kylecityy]

These moments were pretty fun to watch! I think it's important that it's not a matter of rhetoric but material. I'm Christian i agree with Gavin, but just because a scholar stumbles over words in a discussion where anything can come up, it's not fair to say their views a knockout blow. I think it's better to appreciate what both sides shared and not claim losers and winner

[@ntlearning]

@@kylecityy I've edited the comment to reflect your feedback 👍

[@kylecityy]

@ntlearning lol 🔥 I wasn't trying to be a Yelp reviewer. Sorry if I was. just my thought

[@ntlearning]

@@kylecityy 👍

[@bendecidospr]

To say that one law affirms protection against abuse, and the other has a shorter time frame for slavery, and conclude that they are about equal is crazy to me. Its simply not the same thing at all. Its like saying this law in Canada forbids murdering their children, but this other law in the U.S. requires parents to give $3000 to their children, and concluding, therefore, that both countries' laws are about the same in how good they are.